The judge overseeing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times said that he will be dismissing the suit, as Palin’s team failed to provide a key element of its case.
Judge Jed Rakoff’s ruling came while the jury is still deliberating a verdict. Rakoff said that the jury will be allowed to continue deliberating and reach their own verdict, but once it does, he will dismiss the case.
If the jury comes back with a verdict that finds the New York Times is not liable, Rakoff indicated that he will allow the verdict to stand. But if the jury finds the New York Times guilty of liable, he is expected to set the verdict aside and replace it with his own, throwing the case out.
Rakoff said Palin did not prove “actual malice,” which is what Palin and her team needed to meet in the defamation case.
A precedent was set in the landmark 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case, which specified that public figures who sue for defamation need to prove that the offended knew the claim was false or showed a “reckless disregard” for the truth.
In Palin’s case, the New York Times has continuously said that it was an honest mistake and that they had issued a quick and swift correction.
Palin’s lawsuit claimed the newspaper smeared her on purpose. After hours of discussion that Palin’s team had not presented a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the case,” meaning that her prosecution team was not able to prove there was actual malice or intent, defamation has not been proven.
Rakoff said that the law sets a very high standard for actual malice and that this seems to be more of an example of “very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times.”
It is expected that Palin and her legal team will file an appeal.
Be the first to comment